Research Question: What are ways to evaluate teacher effectiveness? Contributed by: Kayla Belanger
Teacher Advancement Program
Teacher evaluation is always changing because the important factors of schooling have changed throughout the years. Overall, teacher evaluation has bee overlooked and not taken as seriously as it should be. In the past few years, steps have been made to improve teacher effectiveness through evaluation and accountability. With the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), teacher evaluation has begun to be seen as much more of a priority. This program aims to implement many different methods of evaluation in contrast to what already exists. TAP has a different approach to evaluation. it consists of both qualitative and value-added components. Therefore, there will be evaluation by multiple visits by highly trained advisors throughout the year to grade teachers from a rubric. the rubric will have four sections: designing and planning instruction, classroom learning environment, instruction, teaching responsibilities. This should carry out consistency in evaluation. Also, there will be a value-added component which will be a little different than the black and white approach to standardized test. Instead of evaluation on achievement, the evaluation will be of growth. That way, a teacher is not punished for setbacks in student's low level performance before coming to that class.[1]
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
A teacher evaluation idea coming from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) created in 1987 was made up of five criteria . First, "teachers are committed to students and their learning." Second, "teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students." Third, "teachers are responsible for managing and mentoring student learning." Fourth, "teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience." Fifth, "teachers are members of learning communities." This idea is also about a broad evaluation rather than based on a couple components. There are no standards for this system though.[2]
Drive On to Improve Evaluation Systems for Teachers
Teacher evaluation has been overlooked. evaluation doesn't mean enough in today's systems because pay is based on experience rather than effectiveness. Therefore, if a teacher is not worried about a fluctuation in pay, he/she therefore won't care as much about accountability or effectiveness making the evaluation not have enough value. Also, evaluation of teachers needs to help improve rather than focus on getting rid of the unsuccessful. This brings a better attitude toward teacher evaluation. Standardized testing for teacher evaluation don't work the way they are supposed to because they only test basic skills. Also, most teachers don't even teach the subjects presented on the tests. Finally, before an effective method of teacher evaluation can be created, there needs to be standards. Without standards, there can be no real conclusions drawn on effectiveness.[3]
Race To the Top
After no child left behind was seen as an unsuccessful way of evaluation, ideas were further developed. Right now, with Race to the top, it is putting a lot more emphasis on better ways to evaluate teacher effectiveness. It recognizes that teachers cannot be held accountable by just test scored and student achievement. There are a lot more variables. With this system, it is encouraged that teachers be evaluated by the growth of their students rather than just their knowledge. It recognizes also that there needs to be a much bigger emphasis on qualitative evaluation like the classroom visits. Also, they propose a change in par for teachers that reflects of the outcome of their evaluation which is based on four components: 1) Knowledge and skills 2) Professional evaluation 3) Market incentives 4) Student growth [4]
Over time, the evaluation process and the things that were evaluated in teachers has changed. For the past 25 years, though, evaluation of teachers has been basically the same. There are two components that are the most popular means of evaluation in teachers. These are standardized testing and classroom visits. Both of these processes for evaluation both have their positives and negatives and also can be controversial. But these ways of evaluation have been used and relied on as sometimes the only ways to evaluate teachers.
Now I know that students have strong opinions about standardized testing. Right now let’s list some pros and cons of standardized testing as the only means of teacher evaluation.
Now let’s list some pros and cons of classroom visits being the only means of teacher evaluation.
Usually these systems are used, for the most part, on their own, while testing is a lot more popular.
Organizations for education have been trying to connect both of these concepts for teacher evaluation and the ideas have developed quite a bit very recently. An organization founded in 1987 called the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards had originally come up with a very vague list of guidelines for teacher evaluation that could be looked at as sort of the building blocks of more recent, more focused, guidelines.
This board made five guidelines: 1) Teachers are committed to the students and their learning 2) Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students 3) Teachers are responsible for managing and mentoring student learning 4) Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience 5) Teachers are members of learning communities
No child left behind is another attempt to incorporate teacher accountability. While it made strides toward the evaluation of teachers, it held too much weight on the standardized test. Now we have seen from all the cons we found for only using this method of evaluation that it cannot be solely relied on and It’s clear that there are many flaws. No child left behind did try to put emphasis on classroom visits but there was no consistency so it got overlooked. Even though this system had many flaws, it was a good eye-opener. Before this, there wasn’t really a way to evaluate teacher effectiveness. At least after this attempt, we have a better understanding of what doesn’t work, or needs some adjusting.
After no child left behind was seen as an unsuccessful way of evaluation, ideas were further developed. Right now, with Race to the top, it is putting a lot more emphasis on better ways to evaluate teacher effectiveness. It recognizes that teachers cannot be held accountable by just test scored and student achievement. There are a lot more variables. With this system, it is encouraged that teachers be evaluated by the growth of their students rather than just their knowledge. It recognizes also that there needs to be a much bigger emphasis on qualitative evaluation like the classroom visits. Also, they propose a change in par for teachers that reflects of the outcome of their evaluation which is based on four components: 1) Knowledge and skills 2) Professional evaluation 3) Market incentives 4) Student growth
Finally, the Teacher advancement program seems to have the best idea for evaluation. This program insists that a balanced evaluation is needed. There needs to be a combination of qualitative and value-added evolution to get a true grasp of a teacher’s effectives in the classroom. For visits, the program wants multiple visits by multiple trained personnel. These people will grade a teacher from a rubric with four components: 1) Designing and planning instruction 2) Classroom learning environment 3) Instruction 4) Teaching responsibilities
Therefore, there will be a consistency in the classroom visits. For the testing portion of the evaluation, teachers will be held accountable for student growth instead of student achievement. That way, a teacher is not penalized for, for instance, a student that didn’t have the appropriate skills coming into the teacher’s class. The teacher will only be responsible for what the students gain from his or her instruction.
In my opinion, even this isn’t enough to accurately evaluate a teacher. There are just too many factors that come into play. For example, none of these methods include the student’s perspective. Some factors that I have thought of that I think should be considered in the evaluation process include things like: 1) Student surveys 2) A presentation of a teacher’s method to see if it is effective 3) Self evaluation 4) Feedback to the teacher to understand what they need to improve on 5) Teacher/student relationship a. Did anyone have a teacher that you weren’t sure even knew your name for a long time? Were you more or less likely to ask a question if you didn’t think that the teacher knew who you were? 6) Attitude a. Again, if a teacher showed a bad attitude during class, were you more or less likely to go for extra help? 7) Are the students engaged during class? Incorporate students and keep their attention with a more interactive teaching style.
These are just some components that can be thought of as significant factors and proves that teacher evaluation needs to become broader with more components to it. Especially since what we have now if barely giving us an idea of teachers and their effectiveness.
Contributed by: Kayla Belanger
Teacher Advancement Program
Teacher evaluation is always changing because the important factors of schooling have changed throughout the years. Overall, teacher evaluation has bee overlooked and not taken as seriously as it should be. In the past few years, steps have been made to improve teacher effectiveness through evaluation and accountability. With the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP), teacher evaluation has begun to be seen as much more of a priority. This program aims to implement many different methods of evaluation in contrast to what already exists. TAP has a different approach to evaluation. it consists of both qualitative and value-added components. Therefore, there will be evaluation by multiple visits by highly trained advisors throughout the year to grade teachers from a rubric. the rubric will have four sections: designing and planning instruction, classroom learning environment, instruction, teaching responsibilities. This should carry out consistency in evaluation. Also, there will be a value-added component which will be a little different than the black and white approach to standardized test. Instead of evaluation on achievement, the evaluation will be of growth. That way, a teacher is not punished for setbacks in student's low level performance before coming to that class.[1]National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
A teacher evaluation idea coming from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) created in 1987 was made up of five criteria . First, "teachers are committed to students and their learning." Second, "teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students." Third, "teachers are responsible for managing and mentoring student learning." Fourth, "teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience." Fifth, "teachers are members of learning communities." This idea is also about a broad evaluation rather than based on a couple components. There are no standards for this system though.[2]Drive On to Improve Evaluation Systems for Teachers
Teacher evaluation has been overlooked. evaluation doesn't mean enough in today's systems because pay is based on experience rather than effectiveness. Therefore, if a teacher is not worried about a fluctuation in pay, he/she therefore won't care as much about accountability or effectiveness making the evaluation not have enough value. Also, evaluation of teachers needs to help improve rather than focus on getting rid of the unsuccessful. This brings a better attitude toward teacher evaluation. Standardized testing for teacher evaluation don't work the way they are supposed to because they only test basic skills. Also, most teachers don't even teach the subjects presented on the tests. Finally, before an effective method of teacher evaluation can be created, there needs to be standards. Without standards, there can be no real conclusions drawn on effectiveness.[3]Race To the Top
After no child left behind was seen as an unsuccessful way of evaluation, ideas were further developed. Right now, with Race to the top, it is putting a lot more emphasis on better ways to evaluate teacher effectiveness. It recognizes that teachers cannot be held accountable by just test scored and student achievement. There are a lot more variables. With this system, it is encouraged that teachers be evaluated by the growth of their students rather than just their knowledge. It recognizes also that there needs to be a much bigger emphasis on qualitative evaluation like the classroom visits. Also, they propose a change in par for teachers that reflects of the outcome of their evaluation which is based on four components:1) Knowledge and skills
2) Professional evaluation
3) Market incentives
4) Student growth
[4]
Over time, the evaluation process and the things that were evaluated in teachers has changed. For the past 25 years, though, evaluation of teachers has been basically the same. There are two components that are the most popular means of evaluation in teachers. These are standardized testing and classroom visits. Both of these processes for evaluation both have their positives and negatives and also can be controversial. But these ways of evaluation have been used and relied on as sometimes the only ways to evaluate teachers.
Now I know that students have strong opinions about standardized testing. Right now let’s list some pros and cons of standardized testing as the only means of teacher evaluation.
Now let’s list some pros and cons of classroom visits being the only means of teacher evaluation.
Usually these systems are used, for the most part, on their own, while testing is a lot more popular.
Organizations for education have been trying to connect both of these concepts for teacher evaluation and the ideas have developed quite a bit very recently. An organization founded in 1987 called the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards had originally come up with a very vague list of guidelines for teacher evaluation that could be looked at as sort of the building blocks of more recent, more focused, guidelines.
This board made five guidelines:
1) Teachers are committed to the students and their learning
2) Teachers know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students
3) Teachers are responsible for managing and mentoring student learning
4) Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
5) Teachers are members of learning communities
No child left behind is another attempt to incorporate teacher accountability. While it made strides toward the evaluation of teachers, it held too much weight on the standardized test. Now we have seen from all the cons we found for only using this method of evaluation that it cannot be solely relied on and It’s clear that there are many flaws. No child left behind did try to put emphasis on classroom visits but there was no consistency so it got overlooked. Even though this system had many flaws, it was a good eye-opener. Before this, there wasn’t really a way to evaluate teacher effectiveness. At least after this attempt, we have a better understanding of what doesn’t work, or needs some adjusting.
After no child left behind was seen as an unsuccessful way of evaluation, ideas were further developed. Right now, with Race to the top, it is putting a lot more emphasis on better ways to evaluate teacher effectiveness. It recognizes that teachers cannot be held accountable by just test scored and student achievement. There are a lot more variables. With this system, it is encouraged that teachers be evaluated by the growth of their students rather than just their knowledge. It recognizes also that there needs to be a much bigger emphasis on qualitative evaluation like the classroom visits. Also, they propose a change in par for teachers that reflects of the outcome of their evaluation which is based on four components:
1) Knowledge and skills
2) Professional evaluation
3) Market incentives
4) Student growth
Finally, the Teacher advancement program seems to have the best idea for evaluation. This program insists that a balanced evaluation is needed. There needs to be a combination of qualitative and value-added evolution to get a true grasp of a teacher’s effectives in the classroom. For visits, the program wants multiple visits by multiple trained personnel. These people will grade a teacher from a rubric with four components:
1) Designing and planning instruction
2) Classroom learning environment
3) Instruction
4) Teaching responsibilities
Therefore, there will be a consistency in the classroom visits. For the testing portion of the evaluation, teachers will be held accountable for student growth instead of student achievement. That way, a teacher is not penalized for, for instance, a student that didn’t have the appropriate skills coming into the teacher’s class. The teacher will only be responsible for what the students gain from his or her instruction.
In my opinion, even this isn’t enough to accurately evaluate a teacher. There are just too many factors that come into play. For example, none of these methods include the student’s perspective. Some factors that I have thought of that I think should be considered in the evaluation process include things like:
1) Student surveys
2) A presentation of a teacher’s method to see if it is effective
3) Self evaluation
4) Feedback to the teacher to understand what they need to improve on
5) Teacher/student relationship
a. Did anyone have a teacher that you weren’t sure even knew your name for a long time? Were you more or less likely to ask a question if you didn’t think that the teacher knew who you were?
6) Attitude
a. Again, if a teacher showed a bad attitude during class, were you more or less likely to go for extra help?
7) Are the students engaged during class? Incorporate students and keep their attention with a more interactive teaching style.
These are just some components that can be thought of as significant factors and proves that teacher evaluation needs to become broader with more components to it. Especially since what we have now if barely giving us an idea of teachers and their effectiveness.
- Mary Weiss, Stephen Gary, “New Directions in Teacher Evaluation. ERIC Digest.,” December 2, 2010, http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/new.htm
.- “PUE-Summer2010-V7I1-pp128-131.pdf,” December 2, 2010, http://www.urbanedjournal.org/AAACurrentIssue/Commentaries/CommentaryPDFsV7I1/PUE-Summer2010-V7I1-pp128-131.pdf
.